Rather horrible. The report that his family may have left the area, by the time police tried to contact them, is troubling.
Hereâs some interesting data:
Of the 39 shootings in the study that occurred in educational environments, 31 of the shooters had some relationship with the school (27 were current or former students). Out of 23 businesses with no pedestrian traffic (i.e., private offices rather than stores) where shootings occurred, 22 of the shooters were current or former employees. These shooters are overwhelmingly motivated by some grievance rather than a desire to maximize casualties, which makes it highly unlikely that a gun-free policy had any bearing on the choice of target.
There are some interesting points there, but they are cherry picking data at least as badly as Lott has been accursed of doing. Additionally, Iâm disinclined to listen much to anything supported by Everytown for Gun Safety. The article spends a great deal of effort debunking studies with links to other (themselves debunked) studies.
Itâs hard to find any useful data for an issue so politicizedâas they admit, to their credit. For one, you have questions of definitions; for example, if you brandish a firearm in defense of your life and the assailant disengages (i.e. runs away) without a shot being fired, that is not considered a defensive gun use by FBI statistics.
Itâs a sticky question. Iâm not sold on âmore guns, less crime,â but it is demonstrably untrue that more guns = more crime or that less guns = less crime. In other words, there are too many factors at play to make many sweeping generalizations.
For me, the salient point is thatâwhen controlling for other factors and comparing like to like populationsâthe data available shows that heavily restricted jurisdictions in this country are not any safer and the least restricted jurisdictions are not any more dangerous. Other factors are at play. Ergo, there is no good reason to make it harder for ME to buy and enjoy firearms.
The more interesting questions:
- Where do U.S. criminals get their weapons? What effect, if any, do purchasing restrictions (e.g. waiting periods, background checks, etc.) have on this process?
- What effect, if any, did the 10-year âassault weaponsâ ban actually have on crimes committed with such weapons? What has changed since its expiration a decade ago?
- For any given proposed legislation in response to a specific event: would such a law have prevented (or even discouraged) said event?
Many of these have been pretty well studied and answered, but people will believe what they want to believe. I donât claim to be immune to this. =)
From accounts I have read, the most recent shooting involved firearms legally purchased in accordance with Oregonâs mandatory background checks. Clearly those arenât a cure-all. Instituting them nationwide over all firearms transfers would not change a thing except a) annoy people, b) create new felons out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners who simply donât want the gubmint in their business, and c) create a de facto registry of firearms ownership. Gun people are particular opposed to the latter: itâs not anyoneâs business what is in my safe any more than it is their business what computers I own.
I am in favor of handling most of these things at the local and state level because we can see what works and what does not. Also, if my state starts doing something really stupid, I can move away and still enjoy the benefits, privileges, and duties of a U.S. citizen in a local political climate more to my taste.
A very valid point. A lot of this legislation would not have done a damned thing, but that pales in comparison with the imperative of âI did something! Look! Iâm doing something!â
Especially when that âsomethingâ is ârunning around wringing your hands and screaming your head offââŚ
Well, yeah, if thereâs going to be a shooting at a football game, of course it would be the Cowboys and Patriots.
I think the more important way to look at gun legislation is as follows.
Will this law impact anyone but people who currently already follow the law?
Most things I see either seek to take guns from legal owners, register them, or restrict legal buyers.
What the hell does my $2,500 custom AR-15 with scope, suppressor, single point sling attachment, and whatever other gewgaws (That I donât own) have to do with some asshole shooting his wife in the face? Is preventing me from buying another Mosin from Joe at the gun show, or Bob on Facebook going to stop Jimmy from lighting up his girlfriendâs car with his Taurus 9mm that he bought in a back alley?
Frankly, is preventing me from buying a machine gun going to stop some asshole from modifying his AK 47 to be full auto and roaming the streets of my small town until he self medicates his daily dose of lead? (That happened in the town I live in now a few years ago. Dude lost his shit over some relationship, ended up shooting and killing a police dog and his cop. But full auto is stupid so he mostly ran out of ammo before he shot himself in someoneâs garage the next morning after they had been looking for him all night.)
And even without the boogaboo of 3D printing, guns are easy to make. Go ahead and make them hard enough to procure that instead of a Meth lab in the corner house you have a rd world factor turning out sten guns made from staplers.
Another thing.
Iâm a pretty big dude, and I know a wee bit of martial arts, and I can swing a pretty mean bat.
Exactly what is it about me having a gun in my pocket makes me dangerous? Hell, I could push your ass into traffic, run you over with my car, set your house on fire with gasoline, screw with your power lines, beat the life out of you, choke you to death, and you stand right next to me without a care in the world, but if you were to see a gun on my hip, Iâm dangerous?
And secondly, next time a true blue liberal says itâs time to make guns illegal tell them that abortion should be illegal. One of the first things out of their mouths will be how that wonât stop them, theyâll just go underground. Yet somehow anyone who wants a gun in their world will obey the law.
2 Likes
Those who want to hurt others will find a way to do it with whatever happens to be available.
2 Likes
Well, some folks have been pointing out that most of the reforms arenât about making guns illegal, itâs about preventing inept or insane people from having guns - itâs not about the guns, itâs about the gun owners.
Well, as far as I can see, guns are the only weapon that allow someone to hurt a lot of people in a short amount of time, and get away quickly. If you try to run a bunch of people down with a car, chances are you arenât going to be able to drive away very fast.
The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people.
The perpetrator detonated one bomb, and could have gotten away cleanly but chose instead to use a rifle to detonate dynamite inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing himself, the school superintendent, and several others nearby, as well as injuring more bystanders.
IT ISNâT THE TOOL⌠itâs the crazy person holding it.
Google âchina knife attacksâ to see what people will do without firearms.
I still say itâs far too easy for someone to take out a gun and shoot someone, in the heat of the moment. Or in this case, the tepid lukewarm temperature of the moment.
A couple of things strike me about that story (aside from the complete incomprehensibility of the act)
Angry driver shoots Georgia woman in the back because she was driving too slow
Given that the other driver hasnât yet been found, how do they know he was angry and that he shot because she was driving too slow. In the same article they quote:
You just donât know whatâs in that other personâs mind.
I agree with you CWX - itâs much easier to create mayhem with a gun than it is with a car or a knife (or even explosives). But the solution to Americaâs gun crime problems is not simple, certainly not as simple as restricting ownership,
Even describing the issues is extremely complex, and until the issues can be worked out there wonât be a solution .
I agree. Unfortunately, we canât even have the discussion.
The people causing the latest rukus arenât getting away at all. They donât intend to,
Meanwhile the number of deaths is actually going down every year. Is it possible we hit the sweet spot years ago and are just now seeing results? And what was that sweet spot? Abortion, Head Start programs, we finally locked up all the truly violent people? Who knows.
And thatâs the part that baffles me. You want to end your life? Knock yourself out. I donât see the need to take others with you though.
Dylan Root intended to get away. Others have as well. The turnpike shooters got away for quite awhile.
The FBI said today that violent crime is rising in major US cities.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fbi-head-homegrown-terrorist-recruitment-24-hour-threat-34480595
The reasons may vary, but he said the spread of heroin use has likely played a role in some cases.
Comey said he couldnât offer much assurance that an end is in sight for curbing heroin use.
In Ohio, heroin and opioid use have contributed to record numbers of
overdose deaths. Comey said itâs also likely the region will see a rise
in the use of methamphetamines.
You let doctors and hospitals hand out oxycodone like candy and then wonder why so many more people end up doing heroin. But the drug companies get their money, so itâs all good.
The bit about ISIS was a tad overblown, methinks.
I think that was given far more attention than it warranted. Itâs easy to be alarmist about those remarks, but I look it at like this:
ISIS is recruited constantly through social media and the Internet. The Internet is present in all 50 states (and most countries), 24 hours a day. So yes, the comments could be said to be true, in a fashion.